African Americans Are More Vulnerable to Welfare Penalties

In two new studies, sociologists reveal racial disparities in welfare sanctions
and explore welfare use among Mexican Americans

WASHINGTON, DC — African Americans are significantly more likely to
be sanctioned by the United States welfare system than whites,
according to research published in the June issue of the American Sociological Review, the flagship journal of the American Sociological Association.

In a study led by sociologist Sanford F. Schram, a team of researchers
conducted a multi-pronged analysis to determine how and why race
influences sanctioning under welfare reform in the United States. The
study combined real-life data from the Florida Welfare Transition
program and experimental data from a survey in which case workers were
asked to make sanctioning decisions based on hypothetical scenarios.

“Welfare sanctions should be imposed in response to client behavior in
both law and principle, yet this research indicates that in practice,
sanctions are often used in response to client characteristics,” said
Sanford F. Schram, a professor of social theory and policy at Bryn Mawr
College’s Graduate School of Social Work and Social Research. “This
study provides powerful evidence that race and stereotype-consistent
traits interact to shape the allocation of punishment at the frontlines
of welfare reform.”

Findings from experimental and administrative data both supported the
vulnerability of African Americans to welfare sanctions, especially
when a recipient had a history of one or more sanctions. According to
experimental data, black welfare clients with a prior sanction were 29
percent more likely to be sanctioned than previously-sanctioned whites,
and 45 percent more likely to be sanctioned than whites without a prior
sanction. In the administrative data, the risk of a first-time sanction
was 14 percent higher for African Americans than for white clients.
When there were prior sanctions, the risk doubled to 28 percent for
blacks compared to whites who had no sanction history.

“White clients in these experiments suffered no statistically
discernible negative effects when linked to characteristics that hold
negative meanings in the welfare-to-work context,” Schram said.
“Minority clients, however, enjoyed no such immunity: their odds of
being sanctioned increased in the presence of discrediting markers even
when the details of their case did not change a bit.”

Despite identical situations posed to welfare case workers in
experimental surveys, a pregnant Hispanic with four children was
significantly more likely to be sanctioned than a white client with
only one child. Although results differed in a similar analysis of
administrative data, the lack of consistency between the two data sets
confirms previous research that demonstrated a narrower gap between
Hispanic and white stereotypes than between black and white
stereotypes.

Experimental data for this study came from a Web-based survey completed
during a two-week period at the end of 2006 by 144 case managers with
the Florida Welfare Transition program. Case managers were presented
with realistic rule-violation scenarios in which key client
characteristics were randomly assigned. Case managers then were asked
if they would impose a sanction in response to the scenario. The
hypothetical scenarios randomized the client’s race (white, African
American or Hispanic) and the client’s personal situation. In one
scenario, the client was a young mother of multiple children and in
another she was a repeat welfare recipient with a history of sanctions.

Experimental data were analyzed in conjunction with real-world
administrative data from the Florida Department of Children and
Families. The data set included monthly, individual-level records for
those who received Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF)
between January 2000 and April 2004. In an effort to match the
scenarios provided in the experimental survey as closely as possible,
records were analyzed based on the joint effects of (1) ethnicity and
family size and (2) the joint effects of racial status and sanction
history. The total administrative sample included more than 6,000 women
and nearly 20,000 monthly observation records of participants.

Schram’s co-authors for this study included Joe Soss, Cowles Professor
for the Study of Public Service at the University of Minnesota, Richard
C. Fording, Professor of Political Science at the University of
Kentucky, and Linda Houser, a doctoral candidate at Bryn Mawr College.

Immigrants and Welfare

In another study to examine welfare in the context of demographic groups in the June issue of the American Sociological Review,
sociologists Jennifer Van Hook and Frank D. Bean found that, prior to
welfare reform, Mexican immigrants were more likely than other groups
to transition from welfare to work, particularly in states that
provided more generous welfare benefits.

“This research refutes welfare reform assumptions that immigrants and
disadvantaged native citizens seek out and maintain welfare assistance
for the same reasons,” said Jennifer Van Hook, associate professor of
sociology and demography at the Pennsylvania State University. “In the
case of Mexican immigrants, welfare seems to be used primarily to
minimize the effects of gaps in employment, not to avoid work or
perpetuate dependency.”

Among women who reported receiving Aid to Families with Dependent
Children (AFDC, the pre-welfare reform version of TANF), Mexican
immigrants were significantly more likely to exit welfare within one
year (57.7 percent) than were white (37.9 percent) or black (36.4
percent) natives.

Using samples of 4,071 racially diverse immigrant women and 9,265 white
or black native women from the Survey of Income and Program
Participation (SIPP), Van Hook and Bean analyzed longitudinal data from
the 1990 through 1993 annual SIPP panels. The researchers chose to
analyze pre-welfare reform data due to the lack of special restrictions
related to migration status on the welfare eligibility of legal
immigrants. The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act
(Welfare Reform Act) of 1996 barred legal immigrants entering the
United States after August 22, 1996, from receiving assistance for the
first five years after entry.

The research underscores the importance of taking cultural
considerations into account in explaining immigrant welfare behaviors.
Van Hook and Bean attribute the lower rates of welfare receipt and
higher rates of post-welfare employment of Mexican immigrant women to
the strong pro-employment cultural orientation among these immigrants.

“Our research suggests that the strong involvement of work and family
in the Mexican decision to migrate leads to the prioritization of
employment well after migration, minimizing welfare receipt and
increasing post-welfare employment,” Van Hook said. “Further, immigrant
public assistance may in fact have a positive effect on integration,
helping immigrants to work their way out of poverty and off welfare.”

Welfare reform is not likely to deter future Mexican immigration,
according to Van Hook and Bean, if policymakers are indeed misguided in
assuming that immigrants are drawn to the United States by welfare, or
that immigrants assimilate into welfare. Instead, welfare reform
actually may delay economic incorporation, particularly if no other
form of economic settlement assistance is available to immigrants
experiencing conditions of great economic need.

The research articles “Deciding to Discipline: Race, Choice and
Punishment at the Frontlines of Welfare Reform” and “Explaining Mexican
Immigrant Welfare Behaviors: The Importance of Employment-Related
Cultural Repertoires” as well as author interviews are available by
request for members of the media. Contact Jackie Cooper, ASA’s Media
Relations Officer, at pubinfo@asanet.org or (202) 247-9871.